Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about the oilspill in the gulf and what has or has not been happening recently. I don't think there is an American citizen who can really avoid seeing on television or hearing on the radio or reading in the newspapers about the devastating consequences of the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. The fact is, we have drilled for oil and have been producing oil in the gulf for a long time, dating back to the 1940s. I believe something like 50,000 wells have been dug offshore. So it is not a surprise that there has been oil development offshore in this country, and we have achieved drilling a fair amount of oil for the needs of this country. But it is also the case that deep well drilling--in this case, a well that is drilled into the ocean floor a full mile below the surface of the water and then down another 30,000 feet below that--is a very different situation. It is also now clear that this company, the company that was engaged in drilling this well, did not have the wherewithal, the technical capability to decide: If something disastrous happens, we should be able to shut down the gusher of oil. I would have thought and would have expected that the company would have covered the worst possible circumstances. What if the worst thing happens? Do we have the capability to address it? The answer at this point is no. This is the 50th day in which oil has been gushing out into the Gulf of Mexico from this oil rig blowup. It is pretty clear to everybody that, after trying a series of different things, the BP Corporation does not know how to address this gusher of oil into the gulf. I was reading this morning another news story about this. I confess to my colleagues that I don't live on the gulf. I am not from one of those States. They would, perhaps, know much more about it than I would. But most of us in this country are learning from the investigations that are being done, and we are learning more and more about not only what has happened, but what the consequences are. The story this morning: ``Rate of Oil Leak, Still Not Clear . . . '' So 50 days later, we don't understand how much is coming out of the faucet, how much is spilling from this gusher into the Gulf of Mexico. It is difficult or almost impossible to measure what has been the effect in recent days of some amount of containment that has been successful. We know they are not containing all of the oil, but they are gathering some of the oil. The question is, What amount? What percentage of the oil that is gushing into the gulf is being contained? One of the things that bothered me a fair amount is I am quoting now from a New York Times piece: On Sunday, engineers halted their efforts to close all four vents on the capping device, because even with one vent closed, the amount of oil being captured was approaching 15,000 barrels a day, the processing capacity of the collection ship on the surface. If you are going to be able to collect more oil, why would you not have enough ships on the surface to be able to allow you to close more of those vents and to capture more oil and have the requisite number of ships on the surface to deal with it? I don't understand that at all. But it seems to me that every time we read something new about this, it is that somebody didn't plan properly to try to address this issue. The story goes on to say: Some scientists involved in the Flow Rate Technical Group say they would like to produce a better estimate, but they are frustrated by what they view as stonewalling on BP's part, including tardiness in producing high-resolution video that could be subjected to computer analysis, as well as the company's reluctance to produce a direct measurement of the flow rate. Continuing to quote: They said the installation of the new device and the rising flow of oil to the surface had only reinforced their conviction they did not have enough information. A Dr. Leifer said: It's apparent that BP is playing games with us, presumably under the advice of their legal team. It's six weeks that it's been dumping into the gulf, and still no measurements. Again, that is a direct quote from Dr. Leifer in this article. All of us understand that the consequences of this are devastating. We stand here and debate and talk and we go to hearings, yet there are people at the end of a dock in some small town who look out, and all of those fishing boats are idle, sitting at the dock, because it has destroyed the fishing in that area. The shrimpers who would normally be out dealing with the shrimp beds, their boats are idle, their nets are idle. Those are people who are losing money every day, the people who can't make a monthly payment on their boat that is sitting on the dock because they can't go out because their fishing industry is gone. Those people have to make payments at the end of the month. The person with the cafe or the restaurant on the dock that has very few people visiting these days is losing money hand over fist. You could go on and on about the consequences of what this has meant to the gulf--to the families, to small businesses, to the fishing industry, the shrimpers, and so on. So it seems to me it is time now, after 50 days, to ask a couple of other questions, and I am going to make a suggestion. I asked at a hearing recently whether the BP commitment, which says: We will pay or reimburse for all ``legitimate'' costs--I asked the Justice Department in a hearing: Is this pledge by BP a binding commitment? Does it bind anybody? The answer by the Justice department representative is that, no, it is not binding. It is a pledge. I think that is certainly better than not having a pledge--to have a company whose rig has caused this gusher of oil, this unbelievable spill into the Gulf of Mexico--if that company makes a pledge, it is better than having a company walk away. On the other hand, a pledge without a binding commitment doesn't mean very much. What I suggest at this point is that we, after 50 days, decide to go beyond that pledge. I have seen people interviewed who have said: we have submitted to BP what is happening to our small business, our families, and our boats, and haven't gotten a response, or we got turned down, or this or that. It seems that we ought to understand the consequences of this, and the depth of the costs is going to require something very different. What I propose is the following: I think on this 50th day of the spill, what I believe should happen is that the Justice Department should go to BP and say: Let us formalize an agreement in which you put the first $10 billion from BP into a gulf coast recovery program. That gulf coast recovery fund would be available and would be run by two interests. One would be a special master who would represent the public interest, and the second would be a counselor who would represent BP's interest, and they would jointly manage the $10 billion gulf coast recovery funds-- and it may need much more than that. At least the first step is that you have $10 billion in a fund, and you have some public interest that is now involved in making judgments. Look, BP has its own interests at heart. I don't doubt that it wants this gusher stopped. I understand that. I don't doubt at all that BP wants to minimize the damage. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting this: When presented with a range of alternatives, or of opportunities, or of actions, that a company will have to act in its best interest. That is the requirement for its shareholders. That may well not be in tandem or may not travel parallel with what is in the public's interest. That is why I think that it is now time to say to BP that you have made a pledge; is the pledge binding? Does it have real money behind it? We read and see that they have spent $1.5 billion at this point. This is a company that made $150 billion in net profit in 10 years. That is $15 billion a year. Again, what I suggest is a $10 billion payment into a gulf coast recovery fund, which the company would have a part in the management of, and a special master representing the public interest would have the management of, and that we proceed from there and determine how much more is required. Perhaps if the $10 billion is not all required, the company gets reimbursed. My own expectation is that the cost of this spill will far exceed the $10 billion when it is all done. This is going to last for years. We know that. This is not something that will be resolved in the next 6 months. I am talking now about the costs. Let us hope that finally, at long last, this spill, this gusher, gets shut down. But when that happens, there is so much more to do to try to understand what this means to the families who made their living on that coast. What does it mean to them? How do we go forward and recover? With what? That is why I think this gulf coast recovery fund, with BP's money and a special master involved in at least bringing the public interest into the discussion about what kind of outlays from that fund are made and to whom and for what purposes, is critical. I am going to write to the Justice Department today suggesting that this is an approach that should be taken. Look, if BP is approached and BP says, you know what, we don't intend to put money into a fund, that tells us a little something, doesn't it? Is the money going to be there, or isn't it? That is a partial answer to that. If the company says we don't intend to put money into a gulf coast recovery fund--if that is the case, then we have legislation on the floor with which we could address that issue. There are ways to address this with fees and other applications to the company that caused this damage. Better, it seems to me, to take the company at its word when it pledges that it will reimburse legitimate costs; but also say to them, as a result of that pledge, let's now make it binding and let's begin to put together this gulf coast recovery fund that represents a binding commitment from the company. If the company ultimately doesn't pay these costs, we know what would happen. It will go on the backs of the American taxpayer. That is not a fair way to resolve this, and it is not acceptable. It is a very large company. It has made a substantial amount of money. It made $6 billion, as reported, in the first quarter of this year alone. Surely a $10 billion initial commitment into a gulf coast recovery fund is not too much to ask, to begin the construction of a fund that would merge both the public interest, which is important, with the private interest of BP, to make sure the funding is not only made available but that it is used in a way that addresses the significant costs that have been visited upon the people who live and work in that region. I know there are many ideas that are being kicked around in the Congress and elsewhere to try to address a wide range of issues. Many of them have great merit. It seems to me that we need to do something for the family this morning who is wondering whether it is going to survive, whether its business can survive, whether it can make its boat payment on the fishing boat at the end of the month when there are no fish to catch. When the restaurant pulls the shades because it has no customers and it is right near the dock--all these folks, and so many others, who have lost their jobs and who confront this questions of: What about us? What are we going to do? Will there be recovery for us, for my family, and for our small town? I think the best way for us to address this is to say let's make sure the pledge made by BP becomes a binding one. I think that can be done without legislation. It can be done by this administration and the Justice Department reaching out and signing an agreement creating such a fund, creating a special master with BP, having BP deposit the money so it could begin a robust, significant, and real recovery fund. If this company says that is not their intent, that they don't intend to do that, or they are not interested in doing that, then it seems to me a binding requirement is one we should take up here on the floor of the Senate, and very quickly. There are plenty of ways--and I will not go into them now--for us to address the question of whether the company that caused this spill, this gusher of oil, which is certainly the most significant disaster in the gulf in the last century and perhaps more-- if the company that caused that--whose rig caused that, says we don't intend to be a part of something like this, then there are approaches we can use here in the Senate to make that company responsible for it in a binding way. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, June 10, 2010, at 3 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending committee issues. 1. Nomination of Tracie L. Stevens to serve as Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission; 2. Nomination of JoAnn Balzer to serve as Member, Board of Trustees, Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development; 3. Nomination of Cynthia Chavez Lamar to serve as Member, Board of Trustees, Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development; 4. S. 2802, the Blackfoot River Land Settlement Act of 2009; 5. S. 2906, a bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to modify a provision relating to leases involving certain Indian tribes in Washington; and 6. S. 1448, a bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the supplemental appropriations bill. I understand. I have been chairing a hearing, and I understand I have not missed very much. It appears to me yesterday and today this supplemental appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate has been moving very slowly. In fact, while amendments have been filed and some discussed, we have had no votes. I know the majority leader would very much like to move forward to get this done. In fact, it is the case that if the supplemental bill is not done, my understanding is there will be soldiers who will not receive paychecks in June. So there is an urgency for us to replenish the funding that is necessary in the defense portion of this bill especially. There are other pieces of it that are equally important. For example, the money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency is provided as a result of disasters that are occurring that require some supplemental funding, and other issues are addressed as well. But what I want to mention on the floor of the Senate is a request that has been made about DOE loan guarantees. I got a call from the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Chu, requesting $90 million in this legislation or support in some legislative form to allow them to provide loan guarantees for three nuclear plants that are to be built. They want to begin a process to move down the road on some nuclear energy. I will support these loan guarantees. I think we should do a lot of things and do them well in the energy field, and nuclear energy will be one of those areas. But in order to do the loan guarantees for three nuclear energy facilities that would be built, they need another $90 million in authority. My understanding is that request has been made. However, I have a letter from Peter Orszag, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, that he sent to the Speaker, and he did request, on behalf of the administration, the $90 million for the Energy Department to be able to provide those loan guarantees. Again, I indicated I would support that request. They also have requested an additional $90 million on the renewable energy loan guarantees. Again, there was $2 billion that was removed from renewable energy and has not been restored. So there needs to be some restoration of that, and I would support these as well. But as I indicated, when discussing this with the Energy Secretary and others, there needs to be either an emergency request by the administration or a pay-for. The letter from Mr. Orszag, the head of the OMB, indicates they would request the $90 million for the loan guarantee for a nuclear facility, a third nuclear facility, and $90 million for renewable energy, and they say a separate request will be transmitted in the future to Congress to reduce the fiscal year 2011 budget by the amounts in the supplemental request. Well, that doesn't quite work. I think they understand that concern of mine. You can't offset spending you are going to do now with the reduction in a spending request for some future budget. That is not an appropriate offset. I simply wanted to say that my understanding is the House of Representatives will likely include this request that Secretary Chu says is very important, and I would agree with him that he should be able to have that loan authority to proceed. The House of Representatives will likely include that request, or have included it, including the appropriate offset in this fiscal year so that it does not increase the budget deficit. I have received some calls in the last day or so wondering why I am holding it up here. I am not holding it up here, but it cannot be considered here unless: A, the President has requested it as an emergency, and he has not done that; or B, there is an offset, and the offset being proposed in the letter from the head of the OMB is not an offset, as I said. A promise to submit a budget request that would reduce a future budget is not an offset for something that is done here. In any event, I hope this gets done. I support the Secretary's request. I believe it would be good for us to be able to proceed to have that loan guarantee for the third nuclear energy facility the Secretary wishes to do. If it can't get done here in the Senate with an offset, then at least it will come to conference between the Senate and the House. I hope very much that the House, with the provision of the offset, will make this possible for the Secretary. I wanted to explain that to the Senate. It is a little bit convoluted, but I wanted to explain it because somebody here thought I was blocking this loan guarantee request, and that is not the case. It is not the case that there is opposition to it, in fact. It is just the case that it needs to meet the rules in terms of an offset for the supplemental appropriations bill. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment about energy more generally. I spoke in Dallas, TX, on Monday of this week at the National Wind Energy Conference. I think they said they had 20,000 people there. Wind energy, of course, is a very important part of our country's energy future. We need to take steps to gather energy from the wind and the Sun, where the Sun shines and the wind blows. We need to use these resources for energy, and then put them on a wire and move them to the load centers that need that energy. Such actions will provide more energy here at home, and it makes us less dependent on foreign oil. These are all of the things that I commend. I was thinking today that there has been a lot of discussion in recent weeks on what may or may not happen on the floor of the Senate with respect to energy and/or climate change, and I wish to comment on that a bit. First, I believe something is happening to our climate. I believe we ought to reduce the carbon emissions that are going into the atmosphere, so I am in support of capping carbon. I have indicated, however, I don't support what is called cap and trade, which would effectively be a process by which we provide probably a $1 trillion carbon trading securities market for Wall Street. I have no interest in being a part of that and would not support speculation of carbon markets. However, I think there is something happening to our climate, and we would be wise at the very minimum to do a series of no-regrets things that move us down the road to limit carbon and develop opportunities to reduce carbon emissions and protect our climate. We have been considering whether we get that done now in some sort of climate bill or focus only on an energy bill. My colleagues Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman and others have worked hard on a comprehensive climate bill. The question of what we focus on now is an important issue. The climate change bill they are working on is something that is very substantial, and I commend them for their work. I think they have put an enormous amount of time into that legislation. However, that legislation has not gone through a committee process. They need to find a way to do that at some point. If there are not 60 votes in the Senate, then it will be difficult to move forward on their bill. That is what would be required to bring a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate. If there are not 60 votes, then the very least we should do is work on the energy bill. This is the piece of legislation that has already passed the Senate Energy Committee in June 2009. That was a long time ago, and it passed on a bipartisan basis. We should bring it to the floor of the Senate and move it so that we actually provide substantial improvement to our energy policy in a way that addresses our national security and reduces carbon emissions. It is one thing to talk about it; it is another thing to put a plan together. It is another thing--and more important, in my judgment--to actually reduce carbon emissions. What have we done on the Energy Committee under the leadership of Senator Bingaman? I played a role, and many others, Republicans and Democrats, worked with him in writing that energy bill. What have we done? We have written a bill that does several things. No. 1, it is bipartisan, and No. 2, it would create a new federal national electricity standard. It is a national goal that says here is where we are headed and would put in place a pathway to maximize the production of electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. That is exactly the sort of thing we should do. So while we do that, we also include provisions for building retrofits and building efficiency provisions which are very important. We would provide the process by which you help construct the interstate highway of transmission capability. By doing that, you can find places in the country where you can collect energy from the Sun or the wind and put it on a wire and move it to the load centers. My State of North Dakota is one of the windiest States in America. Department of Energy has called North Dakota the Saudi Arabia of wind. Our kids are born leaning to the northwest against that prevailing wind. But we don't need more wind energy for ourselves. We can put up towers and turbines. We produce far more energy than we need in North Dakota. What we need is a modern day interstate highway transmission capability that can produce energy from the wind in North Dakota and solar from the rural areas of Arizona and so on, and put it on the wire and move it to the load centers where they need the electricity. That is the way you maximize the use of renewable energy for the benefit of the country. It is not hard to get energy from the wind. We have sophisticated, new, better technology in wind turbines. We put up a tower, especially in areas where you find these wind chutes, and you produce electricity virtually forever. Those blades turn around and you make electricity. It makes a lot of sense for us to maximize that. I am in favor of using fossil energy as well. I am not suggesting we use wind and solar energy in exchange for shutting down oil and gas and coal. We are going to continue to use fossil energy, but use it in a different way. We are going to move towards decarbonizing the use of coal, that requires targets and timetables and the ability and research to make that happen. I am convinced we will be able to move in that direction. Every day I have people coming to my office with the new ideas and solutions that is going to make this happen. I have had a guy visit and tell me about a new microbe that he discovered. It was a lollipop- shaped microbe, that was 30 percent more efficient at breaking down cellulose than anything known to mankind. Therefore, this new microbe will be able to break down cellulose and turn it into cellulosic ethanol, reducing the cost from $3 to $2 a gallon. Big deal? Maybe so. I don't know. He has to develop that, and then we will see whether the market beats a path to his door. There are dozens of examples like that. Last night I saw Craig Venter on television. I think Craig Venter is extraordinary. He and Francis Collins led the human genome project. They created the first owners manual for the human body, and it is changing everything in medicine. He has now turned his attention to energy. Now Craig Venter is trying to develop synthetic microbes that could be used to chew away at coalbeds, in layman's term. The microbe will eat its way through the coalbed and turn coal into methane fuel. Is that the solution? Maybe so. Maybe that is the way to use coal in the future; I don't know. There is a guy in California who testified at a committee I chaired who has patented a process that takes the entire fuel gas from a coal plant and, through his patented process, mineralizes it and turns it into something that is harder and more valuable than concrete that contains all of the emitted CO2. This man says the process creates a value-added product that brings the price of carbon down to near zero. Maybe. I don't know. Another guy delivered a presentation to me and insists he has a 100- mile-per-gallon diesel engine. Does he? I don't know; maybe. If he does, I hope the world beats a path to his door. The list of innovators goes on and on. A woman with a Ph.D. from Sandia National Laboratory, testified at a hearing I chaired. She said they are working on a heat engine in which you put CO2 in one side and water in the other. The molecules are then fractured and chemically recombine to produce a fuel. Produce a fuel out of essentially air, CO2, and water. We also have begun doing a lot of work on the issue of algae, I am now talking about how you would perhaps use coal in the future. Coal emits CO2. You capture the CO2 and use it to grow algae, which is a single-cell pond scum, or, the green stuff you see in standing water. CO2, water, and sunlight produce this single-cell pond scum. After growing the algae, you harvest it and produce diesel fuel. Wouldn't it be interesting if you could get rid of the CO2 by producing a new fuel. These are all just a couple of examples of the things I think could be breathtaking in terms of what kind of energy we use and how we use it in the future. Oil and natural gas. In my State of North Dakota we have more oil rigs drilling than anyplace in the country. We have discovered how to find oil 2 miles below the Earth in a shale formation called the Bakken shale that is 100 feet thick, I asked the U.S. Geological Survey to do an assessment of what is there. 2\1/2\ years ago they came back with an assessment that said there is up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil recoverable using today's technology. The Bakken shale formation is 2 miles down. They drill down with one rig, 10,000 feet down, searching for the middle third of a 100-foot seam. They find the seam then, drill out 2 miles. So, they drill down 2 miles, then out 2 miles to search for a 30-foot seam. Then they use hydraulic fracturing so the oil drips. They then pump the oil, and that oil will pump from that well for 30 or 40 years. By the way, there are right now about 117 drilling rigs, drilling wells in North Dakota. They drill a new well every 30 days and they strike oil virtually every time, because with core samples they know exactly where this huge shale formation is. This is the largest assessment of oil the U.S. Geological Survey has ever assessed in the history of the lower 48 States; and in the western part of North Dakota it is unbelievable the amount of drilling that is occurring. So, oil, natural gas and coal, all fossil energy, and we are going to continue to need them and use them. We want to be less dependent on foreign oil so that means producing more here. The terrible disaster that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico means we are not going to lease new properties in the Gulf until we understand the consequences of deep well drilling, but we have drilled tens of thousands of productive wells. One-third of the domestic oil production comes from the Gulf, so that is not going to be shut down at the moment. The question is: What happens in deep well drilling, what has happened that has caused this disaster? As Secretary Salazar and others indicated, they are not going to proceed with new drilling permits or under new circumstances until we understand what happened with the BP well, because this is an unmitigated disaster. There is no question about that. All of these things are important and a part of our energy future. The bill we drafted in the Energy Committee last June, that passed on a bipartisan vote, is a bill that does a lot of everything and does it well. The bill includes a renewable electricity standard, and builds and creates the opportunities to build new transmission lines. I didn't mention previously, but in the last decade we have built 11,000 miles of natural gas pipeline and at the same time we have built only 660 miles of high-voltage interstate transmission lines. Why? Because it is very hard to build a transmission interstate. There are three things needed to build a transmission interstate: planning, pricing, and siting. You have to get them all right. What we have done in this energy bill is to create the menu by which we are finally going to get an interstate transmission capability built. We give FERC backstop authority, and we are careful on the planning and pricing side to try to get all of this right. I think in addition to the things I have described, the renewable electricity standard, the opportunity for an interstate highway of transmission capability that modernizes our grid, provides greater reliability, and maximizes the production of renewable energy, and building retrofits and building efficiency, there is a whole series of other things. I have so much to support. This piece of energy legislation will actually reduce carbon. I think it would be unthinkable to end this year without taking up a bipartisan piece of legislation that actually reduces carbon and actually reaches the goal of those who are wishing to have a climate change bill come to the floor this session. Again, let me end by saying that I think what Senator Kerry and others are working on is very important for our country. We have disagreements here and there, but the disagreement is not about whether there is something happening to our climate; I think there is. There is no disagreement about whether we ought to restrain carbon; we should. There is no disagreement about those central tenets. So I commend the work they have done. I think it is going to be very hard, frankly, to bring a very large piece of legislation to the floor soon that has not been through a committee process. Plaudits to the people who are working hard on this. It is also the case that even if they got their climate bill through, you would have to have another bill, like the bill the Energy Committee has already developed, to actually reduce carbon. On the one side, you set up targets, timetables, and goals; and on the other side, you set up policies that result in the reduction of carbon. My hope is the Energy bill that Senator Bingaman and I and others have worked on will be on the floor of the Senate at some point this summer. I think the Energy bill will do a couple things that are very important. No. 1, substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Do you worry about our economy? I do as well, but it is not just the large banking institutions that steered this country into the ditch. I worry about how vulnerable we are to foreign governments and countries for our oil. We get up in the morning and flick a switch, turn off the alarm and turn on the light, make some hot coffee and take a hot shower, get in a car and turn a key. We use energy in so many ways without ever thinking about it. Oil is so central. Yet, over 60 percent of our oil comes from outside of our country, from some very troubling parts of the world. We need to be less dependent on foreign oil. This legislation we have written makes us less dependent on foreign oil. But as important as that is, this legislation begins to address the issue of climate change in a very real and very significant way. By maximizing the development of renewable energy for this country's future, and doing the things that are necessary to reduce the emission of carbon. As I said when I started, when I spoke in Dallas, TX, on Monday, at the National Wind Energy Conference, you could see and feel and hear the excitement of the people who understand that there is now a new opportunity to contribute to this country's energy supply, with renewable, clean, green energy. We have given very interesting incentives in this country to try new things. Early in the past century, in the nineteen-teens, our country said: If you go look for oil and gas, try to find some, produce some, explore for some, we are going to give you long-term, good, and permanent tax incentives. That is what we did. Why? Because we wanted people to find oil and gas. Those tax incentives still exist. What we did for renewable was very different. In 1992, we said: Here are some tax incentives for renewable energy if you are willing to develop some. But the tax incentives were shallow and temporary. They were extended six times and allowed to expire three times. It was stutter, stop, start, and nobody knew what to think. Invest now, don't invest next. It didn't make sense. I think what we ought to do is plan a menu for our energy future and say here is where America is headed for the next decade. Believe in it and invest in it. That is where we are going. We have done that with other forms of energy, oil and gas, but not with renewable energy, and we should. The ability to gather energy from the Sun that shines on this planet and from the wind. The ability to gather energy from wind is a source of energy that will last forever and will make a significant contribution, in my judgment, to our planet's health. Again, my hope is that in the coming weeks, as some colleagues work on a very broad piece of climate change legislation--and I think it is good that they are doing that and I commend them--if it is clear that the climate change legislation doesn't have the 60 votes, it is very important that we bring to the floor the product that came from the Energy Committee. That will advance this country's energy interests, with less dependence on foreign oil and clean, green energy for maximizing renewable energy sources. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, one of my colleagues, Senator Kaufman, from Delaware, came to the floor and expressed some concern about the issues that will now be followed with respect to financial reform. I wanted to simply say I share many of the concerns he expressed. There are some who are worried about financial reform going too far. I am worried that financial reform still doesn't go far enough. As we go into a conference, I note the conferees who have been appointed, and I note some of the conversations in the media about those who will be in the conference. I am worried. I think in order to address the issues that need to be addressed--and as my colleagues know, I have spoken about this many times, I think too big to fail has to be addressed. I don't think it is yet addressed adequately. I think that if we, in the future, have financial firms that are so large they cause a moral hazard, or unacceptable risks, and whose failure could bring down the entire economy, those firms that are in that situation of too big to fail have to be pared back to a point where they would no longer bring down the economy should they fail. I don't think that has been yet adequately addressed. I also think we have not addressed the issue of the toxic assets that have been traded and essentially wagered in our economy to the tune of trillions of dollars. Some of that wagering, by the way, has turned some bank lobbies into not noticeable but certainly express casinos because of the trading of what are called naked credit default swaps, which are instruments of gaming that have no insurable interest on either side. The growth of these kinds of things and the gaming that is still going on is far afield from the investing and lending that used to be the central functions of our major financial institutions. Sources of capital for the purpose of buying trillions of dollars of naked credit default swaps is not a way to address the ills of our country. I attempted here to get an amendment offered that would simply ban the use of naked credit default swaps. I note that some other countries have now done that. I was not able to get a vote on it. We had a vote on a tabling motion to a second-degree amendment I offered. My hope is that will still remain an opportunity to be corrected in a conference. The issue of proprietary trading is still, I think, a significant issue. I have described banks trading derivatives on their own accounts. I wrote an article about this in 1994, which was the cover story of the Washington Monthly magazine. My story article was titled ``Very Risky Business.'' I was describing then the risk of having proprietary trading by banks on their own accounts of very risky derivatives. That was 16 years ago. On the other hand, the legislation that has just passed this Congress doesn't shut down these issues. They have grown. They have not diminished. I think if we want to give the American people some comfort that somehow, in the end, financial reform will have addressed the issues that caused the near crash of this economy--the deepest recession since the Great Depression--more still needs to be done. I commend my colleagues who worked on this. But we do still have some disagreements and some concerns that this doesn't go far enough. As I said--and I noticed this in the papers this morning--some think there is a danger of this going too far. It does not, in my judgment. Much of it has been watered down in a way that doesn't provide the adequate protection that is needed going into the future. I note that today, Secretary Geithner is going to stop in Europe. He is making two stops in Europe, because he is concerned about the different approaches that are being taken by European countries, and some of the suggestions are that, well, the Europeans aren't doing as much here and there and, therefore, American financial institutions will move their business offshore. Look, I think most of us want to have a financial system that relates to the ways of doing finance that represent the safety and soundness of the financial industry. That was not the case in most recent years. We securitized almost everything-- almost anything that could be. We got rating agencies who acted as though they were inebriated, to give AAA ratings to securities that turned out to be almost nothing. Then they sold the risks up so that those who originally placed loans, for example, didn't have to underwrite the loans, because they weren't going to get stuck with the bill. They would sell them to hedge funds and investment banks, and everybody was making a massive amount of money--big bonuses. When the collapse came, Wall Street, according to New York authorities, had $35 billion in losses in 1 year and paid $17 billion in bonuses. That describes how everybody was awash in money. Everybody was making a lot of cash and big bonuses. What was happening is that all of this greed--this cesspool of greed--was steering this country into the ditch, and the American people suffered mightily as a result of it. Millions of people lost their jobs, millions more lost their homes, millions have lost hope, and there are millions of kids coming out of our colleges last year, the year before, and this year, who still cannot find work. That is the carnage and wreckage that occurred. The question in financial reform is: Will we tighten the laces and get it right, and do what is right on too big to fail, proprietary trading, and other issues? I wanted to say, when I read Senator Kaufman's statement, that he and I had many of the same concerns, as others do. I hope when the conference is held on financial reform, this bill gets tightened, not loosened, and that we make sure we do enough. Don't be too worried about going too far. We are a long way away from that finish line. I commend my colleague, Senator Kaufman, and others who have expressed concerns. I wanted to add my concern as well. The American people deserve to know the Congress is going to get this right. We have now had plenty of understanding and experience about what happened, and we should have the knowledge and the ability to decide we are not going to let it happen again, ever. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 26, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Legality and Efficacy of Line-Item Veto Proposals.''

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, from 2-5 p.m. in Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled ``Assessing Challenges and Opportunities for Peace in Sudan.''

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 26, 2010.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the President's Nomination of Tracie L. Stevens to serve as Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 10 a.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the President's Nomination of Tracie L. Stevens to serve as Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at (202) 224-2251.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will have a unanimous-consent request that has been cleared on both sides. This is a unanimous-consent request about a nomination that has been on the calendar since September 27, which was reported out of the Armed Services Committee by Senators Levin and McCain--reported out unanimously--for the promotion of BG Michael J. Walsh. On October 27, it was determined that the Armed Services Committee agreed with the President for the recommended promotion for the second star for this soldier. It has regrettably been held up; there has been a hold on it since late last year. I have been to the floor several times asking unanimous consent that this nomination for General Walsh be approved. Our colleague, Senator Vitter, from Louisiana, has been upset with the Corps of Engineers for other reasons and has held this nomination for a period of time now. It has been about 7 months. I have indicated on the floor how unfair I think it is to hold the nomination of a promotion of a soldier who has served this country for 30 years. He has gone to war for this country. I know this soldier. He has done an extraordinary job. On a unanimous vote, the Armed Services Committee decided he should be promoted. But month after month, it has sat on this calendar because of the objection of one Senator. My understanding is now the Senator has released the hold as of today. I indicated yesterday I would be on the floor today to ask unanimous consent once again. This morning, it is my understanding that the Senator from Louisiana released his hold. Following yielding to Senator Levin, the chairman of the committee that moved this nomination out--and, by the way, who has also been on the floor and asked unanimous consent to move this nomination--if appropriate, I would allow him to say a few words, and then I will ask unanimous consent to move the nomination. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be recognized, following which I will move the nomination by consent.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 526, the nomination of BG Michael J. Walsh; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record, as if read; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is that we would now yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, after which I have been asked to call for a quorum call.